If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
But where, exactly, is the “fit”? Honda’s Formula One car is a one-trick pony, but it fits, because Honda can say “our Civic is a much better car because of what we’ve learned in Formula One technology” (whether it’s true or not). The Mac Pro’s like that F1 Honda, but where's the fit? Does Apple have any Civics which have profited from what they’re learned?
Right now, it fits in enterprise. It fits in science, the department of defense, and engineering.
Given that the Mac Pro has just now shipped, there is perhaps not yet the equivalent of a Honda Civic that profits, but there will be at some point.
The following $2905 workstation is equivalent to the $5999 Mac Pro both in terms of performance and in terms of using all workstation-class components:
$460 - Supermicro MBD-X11SPI-TF-O motherboard $749 - Xeon W-3223 $100 - Noctua NH-U12S DX-3647 CPU cooler $200 - 32 GB DDR4 2666 ECC RAM $525 - AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 8GB $280 - Dune Pro case with a cheese grater $160 - Samsung 970 Pro NVMe SSD 512GB $231 - Seasonic Prime Ultra 850W 80+ Titanium PSU $200 - Windows 10 Pro -------------------- $2,905
That is not "just a $400 i9 processor jammed in a machine with a plain-as-day Northbridge, a few PCI-E slots, and a couple of I/O options". It is a bona fide workstation, with the same CPU, server-grade ECC RAM, workstation GPU that slightly outdoes the one in the Mac, etc.
Granted, the article said that build-your-own rigs could come in less expensive, but the authors seemed to imply that such builds would not really be comparable to a Mac Pro because they are made from consumer-grade parts. In any case, there's the equivalent+ custom workstation.
The component hardware quality may be the same -- no such implication was made that it wouldn't be. But, from a support standpoint, it isn't equivalent. From a labor of assembly standpoint, it isn't. Way fewer PCI-E and one whole X16 slot on yours. Four fewer RAM slots on yours. Zero Thunderbolt 3 on yours as far as I can tell. Louder. Weaker power supply. You do get more SATA slots, and more USB-A. And, like we said in the article, add more money for Windows for Workstations.
You want to do this? Go nuts. It's probably perfect for what you want to do. But, it isn't equivalent to the Mac Pro in every measure, and falls very short on several key metrics, like most comparisons with part pickers.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, those are good points. I'm not a fan of PC part picker tools, partly for the reason you mentioned. My apologies for incorrectly reading an implication into your article.
The main point from your article which I disagree with is "compared to Windows workstation pricing, the jokes and arguments fall flat". A few inexpensive adjustments to the build I suggested bring it to feature parity with the base Mac Pro on the key metrics, plus some extras:
I don't disagree that some ray tracing calculations are faster on Nvidia, and like I said, I'd still rather have Nvidia support. AMD differs with this assertion, but I'll wait for a practical demonstration of that.
But, best performed on does not mean cannot be done. What I asked about "no possible way" like you asserted. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or trying to make a point. Are there any "cannot be done" work cases on AMD?
This argument would be an example of a contortion. A 5x speed difference is no small thing. It is the difference of 12 minutes per frame vs one hour. Using the argument of what "cannot be done" a professional could make do with an iMac. As I understand it (I am not an AI expert) neural net deep learning is on the order of 100 times faster on a NVIDIA GPU. Not having one is a show stopper.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
When Steve Jobs came back to Apple and introduced the first iMac, it was promoted as the ultimate consumer desktop => easy to set up and easy to use and the Mac Pro at that time was for Pros who needed performance & flexibility. I could be wrong but it feels like Apple is going back to that lineup for desktop Macs; iMac for consumers / prosumers and Mac Pro for the pros that need that capability. That's why I don't think the iMac Pro is long for this world & wouldn't be surprised if it gets cancelled and Apple goes back to iMac / Mac Mini / Mac Pro
Would you believe that any person goes to bed at night with concerns about the cost of the Mac Pro. Of course not, that is beyond silly.
The Mac Pro provides no guidance on future computer prices from Apple, or in anyway has an impact on the lives of ordinary people.
Then I guess I’m “beyond silly” and “not ordinary”, because yes, I’ve had concerns about this machine’s pricing all week! I’ve been trying to come up with some way, some justification for trying to buy Apple’s ONLY proper workstation offering. There’s just no way, but I can’t really move forward in my computer usage until I switch to something modern and NOT COMPACT.
I need a proper workstation. I’ve been waiting for a proper workstation for about ten years. I’ve been struggling to save for it all that time, so that I could have a proper Apple workstation, running Mac OS, instead of a disposable, compact, thermally-constrained all-in-one (or a box of PC/Windows voodoo).
So here we finally are: they announced it was available for sale on my birthday, which is already a time of year I hate. Yeah, I knew the price already, and I was already pissed, but this just felt like getting my face rubbed in it. And yeah, wise-asses, I know it’s not all about me, but I’m a human being with emotions like everyone else and Apple have pushed my damned buttons.
I don’t care what kind of justification you guys throw at this price point, it’s illogical fanatic’s apologetics. The complaint about cost would not be happening to this degree if Apple hadn’t dumped many of their own prior customers. The prosumers, hobbyists, small businesses, enthusiasts... anyone for whom a compact or all-in-one is the WRONG machine, and who still wants to run Mac OS on a legit Apple computer. Apple has ONE offering in this space and it STARTS at $6000!
The whole problem here is a self-inflicted PR injury on Apple’s part by leaving out an entire segment of the market that they used to serve. A large chunk of that market was dumped by Apple (I guess we’re irrelevant to their Wall Street aspirations). I’m not the only pissed-off person in that group, and we aren’t “a bunch of whiners”. This constant ad hominem BS slamming of people with legit critical commentary is utter fanatical nonsense and turns the media meme of “Apple cultists” into a reality.
I would have been able to buy a Mac Pro at the previous pricing (prior cheese-graters started at $2500, and the trash can at $3000); I’d have gone to $3500 for this one, but it’s utterly impossible for me to afford at $6000. This one is TWICE the cost of the last model, and NO, there’s no justification. Comparing it to prior insane pricing for Macs of the deep past does not make sense. Those were cases of technological pushes. Technology has moved on a lot since then. Not only is this technology much more a commodity, this machine isn’t even bleeding edge (as has been pointed out by several other commentators). This machine is not different enough from what is already on the market elsewhere (and what Apple used to offer) to demand this kind of pricing for the BASE MODEL.
And the way you guys dismissed the insane wheel pricing... If you’re not bothered by Microsoft’s insane pricing for Windows licenses, fine, but speak for yourself and don’t lay that nonsense on the rest of us!!!
I’m not a Pixar or an Adobe. Maybe I’m not ordinary either. I’m an artist struggling with poverty, while trying to find some way to advance myself in terms of my tools and my work (and maybe make a living off of something eventually). I want to buy ONE computer for MULTIPLE purposes, and I expect it to be capable of running full-tilt, for many years, without throttling or dying of thermal stresses (or both). I’m entirely WILLING TO SAVE AND SPEND a considerable amount of money for an Apple workstation, but Apple have boldly declared that my considerable expense isn’t considerable enough. Only corporations are worth Apple’s attention.
I’m now an abandoned segment of prior Apple customers and I don’t know WTF Apple expect us to do. Abandon Mac OS so we can have a proper workstation? Build Hackintoshes?? No thank you.
The mental gymnastics, excuses, ad hominem commentary, and sheer callous and blind arrogance on display here is utterly appalling.
Wow.. such a long whining post to confirm what was clear after the first two lines: this computer isn’t for you.
Would you believe that any person goes to bed at night with concerns about the cost of the Mac Pro. Of course not, that is beyond silly.
The Mac Pro provides no guidance on future computer prices from Apple, or in anyway has an impact on the lives of ordinary people.
Then I guess I’m “beyond silly” and “not ordinary”, because yes, I’ve had concerns about this machine’s pricing all week! I’ve been trying to come up with some way, some justification for trying to buy Apple’s ONLY proper workstation offering. There’s just no way, but I can’t really move forward in my computer usage until I switch to something modern and NOT COMPACT.
I need a proper workstation. I’ve been waiting for a proper workstation for about ten years. I’ve been struggling to save for it all that time, so that I could have a proper Apple workstation, running Mac OS, instead of a disposable, compact, thermally-constrained all-in-one (or a box of PC/Windows voodoo).
So here we finally are: they announced it was available for sale on my birthday, which is already a time of year I hate. Yeah, I knew the price already, and I was already pissed, but this just felt like getting my face rubbed in it. And yeah, wise-asses, I know it’s not all about me, but I’m a human being with emotions like everyone else and Apple have pushed my damned buttons.
I don’t care what kind of justification you guys throw at this price point, it’s illogical fanatic’s apologetics. The complaint about cost would not be happening to this degree if Apple hadn’t dumped many of their own prior customers. The prosumers, hobbyists, small businesses, enthusiasts... anyone for whom a compact or all-in-one is the WRONG machine, and who still wants to run Mac OS on a legit Apple computer. Apple has ONE offering in this space and it STARTS at $6000!
The whole problem here is a self-inflicted PR injury on Apple’s part by leaving out an entire segment of the market that they used to serve. A large chunk of that market was dumped by Apple (I guess we’re irrelevant to their Wall Street aspirations). I’m not the only pissed-off person in that group, and we aren’t “a bunch of whiners”. This constant ad hominem BS slamming of people with legit critical commentary is utter fanatical nonsense and turns the media meme of “Apple cultists” into a reality.
I would have been able to buy a Mac Pro at the previous pricing (prior cheese-graters started at $2500, and the trash can at $3000); I’d have gone to $3500 for this one, but it’s utterly impossible for me to afford at $6000. This one is TWICE the cost of the last model, and NO, there’s no justification. Comparing it to prior insane pricing for Macs of the deep past does not make sense. Those were cases of technological pushes. Technology has moved on a lot since then. Not only is this technology much more a commodity, this machine isn’t even bleeding edge (as has been pointed out by several other commentators). This machine is not different enough from what is already on the market elsewhere (and what Apple used to offer) to demand this kind of pricing for the BASE MODEL.
And the way you guys dismissed the insane wheel pricing... If you’re not bothered by Microsoft’s insane pricing for Windows licenses, fine, but speak for yourself and don’t lay that nonsense on the rest of us!!!
I’m not a Pixar or an Adobe. Maybe I’m not ordinary either. I’m an artist struggling with poverty, while trying to find some way to advance myself in terms of my tools and my work (and maybe make a living off of something eventually). I want to buy ONE computer for MULTIPLE purposes, and I expect it to be capable of running full-tilt, for many years, without throttling or dying of thermal stresses (or both). I’m entirely WILLING TO SAVE AND SPEND a considerable amount of money for an Apple workstation, but Apple have boldly declared that my considerable expense isn’t considerable enough. Only corporations are worth Apple’s attention.
I’m now an abandoned segment of prior Apple customers and I don’t know WTF Apple expect us to do. Abandon Mac OS so we can have a proper workstation? Build Hackintoshes?? No thank you.
The mental gymnastics, excuses, ad hominem commentary, and sheer callous and blind arrogance on display here is utterly appalling.
Just get an iMac 5K or Pro, and stop crying in your cups. Jesus. If you’re not making any money you don’t need a workstation, EOS.
Someone explain to me why all these guys think an all-in-one (or some other stupidly compact machine), is an acceptable workstation for heavy workloads!! This is meme-level mindless response territory! Talk about drinking the PR koolaid.
Because they actually are, for many users. And I mean professionals
I work in massively-parallel (think: 100,000 core+ supercomputing), scientific computing. We've purchased ~100 maxed out (~$7k) Mac Pro cylinders over the past few years for our workstation needs.
When the new Mac Pro was announced - we knew that the configuration we would want (28 core, ~128GB of RAM) would be more expensive than the $7k we've been paying. We estimated anywhere from $15k to $20k. It turns out that $15k is the number.
In the interim, we looked into switching over to Linux workstations with 32-core threadrippers. We bought 10 machines like that for about $6k and gave them to our developers who felt like they wanted to switch to Linux. It hasn't been pretty. 2 of the boxes have had hardware problems... and all have had significant downtime because of "Linux issues" (and these people are Linux experts... but, to this day, software upgrades on Linux STILL have a decent chance of breaking your system).
Now the new threadrippers are coming out... and the 64-core ones will be out soon enough. Those look _super_ enticing... but we're not going to do it. It's simply not worth the cost in lost productivity. It only takes losing 50 (yes, really) hours to make up the $8k difference between these machines. That's for machines that we know we will use for at least 5 years... so, anything more than 10 hours a year of downtime would make the Linux boxes more expensive (we almost never have problems with our cylinders and I expect it to be the same for these new Mac Pros).
Therefore: we just put in our upgrade request... we're going to (in phases over a couple of years) buy ~40 of these new boxes at $15k. Yes, they are expensive... but for what we do they are simply the best option.
EDIT: And... all new hires will be receiving the $15k machines as well...
That’s how any company works. Gamers pretending to be “professionals “ can’t speak about reliability and cost of ownership
This machine is monument of stupidity and ignorance. Apple doesn't support Nvidia which is the main GPU for 3D renderers like Octane, Redshift, Corona ,etc . These renderers are standard in design and architecture today, and they are not working with Apple. We can address this issue to Apple specialists ignorance. I really don't know why would anyone besides professionals bought this machine, and professionals are massively switching from Apple to PC because of this. Yes, you can use this machine for video editing, illustration, photography, but why would anyone throw money when they can do that on average grandma's laptop.
And you clearly have proofs of those baseless claims, right ?
How much memory do Threadripper 3900 series systems support. The motherboards advertised on the AMD website say 256 GB memory max, but that really can’t be the max memory supported as the Zen+ MCMs supported 2 TB. Maybe it’s true as the Ryzen 9 3950x seems to support 128 GB max memory, and the Threadrippers are 2 of these chips in a package.
That’s kind of Achilles heel if RAM support is so low and would give OEMs some pause with using them.
128, or 512 as the threadrippers support is plenty on both ends.
So, is it 512 GB or 128 GB max memory support? Which model AMD CPUs are you talking about?
The only information I have so far from the motherboard vendors that AMD links to on their website, which all state max memory support for their boards is 256 GB (4 channels, 2 DIMMs per channel) for Threadripper 3000 series CPUs.
The motherboard specs are basically saying AMD Zen 2 chips have support for 64 GB memory per channel, and each chip has 2 memory channels, resulting in:
Ryzen 5 is a single chip package, 2 memory channels, but likely defeatured to 64 GB max memory support Ryzen 7 is a single chip package, 2 memory channels, supports 128 GB max memory Ryzen 9 is a single chip package, 2 memory channels, supports 128 GB max memory Threadripper 3000 series is a 2 chip package, 2x2 = 4 memory channels, supports 256 GB max memory
It looks like the max memory support is designed to compete with the Core processors, which range from 256 GB for Core X models and lower for the Core i models, and not the Xeons.
I assume for the Epyc packages, 4 chips per package, they won’t fuse the high memory support bits off and so that it is something like 128/256 GB per channel, have 4 DIMM per channel support, etc, so that 1 TB to 2 TB memory can be supported.
Your comment saying its the Achilles heel if ram support is so low, then I think you have not worked on top-end Films where there is always a heavy focus on large data sets, computational power, etc. but all within reason and needs to work in lockstep with the rest of the systems.
I say it is an Achilles heel from an OEM perspective. Like people say all the time about Apple’s computer products, AMD is making a choice for system vendors that they don’t have to or shouldn’t. Still up in the air if it is good choice, but they didn’t have to have the question asked either. Just provide support for 512 GB to 1 TB of memory, which is mostly likely not fusing off the high memory support bits in the processor anyways. If the system vendors think 128 to 256 GB max memory support is more than enough, they can state the max memory support for their systems is so and so, only put it 8 DIMM slots, etc.
As it stands, Intel’s Xeon systems support 1 TB of memory for the low core count Xeon W CPUs and 2 TB for the high core count Xeon W CPUs. This give systems vendors options on how they want to design their computers, and it doesn’t eliminate a class of users and customers that wouldn’t get them otherwise.
In every field that uses a workstation, their will be users who end up using more memory, CPU, storage, GPU, etc, than the computer can provide. 256 GB memory support is definitely low, and would give system vendors pause. There will be CAD users who want their entire model in memory, numerical modelers who want their entire grid in memory, database users who want their entire database in memory, photographers who are dealing with hundred GB sized files, so on and so forth.
In addition to being a workstation, Apple is using the same board in a rack mount version, where they will surely go into cloud computing companies offering macOS hosting, with multiple users on the same machine.
Apple did make of choice of offering a Xeon W system instead of an Xeon-SP and offering a 2 socket system. That’s a definitely a limiting choice, but maybe it was primarily because 1400 W is the most power they could really go with, and something like 1800 W wasn’t worth the effort, and most of those systems are rack mounted anyways. Otherwise, the >256 GB memory support is feature that some buyers will make use off. In regards to a design or market choice between a Threadripper at 32 cores and 256 GB memory versus a Xeon W at 28 cores and 2 TB memory, I’m thinking the 2 TB is better net win.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals?
You imply someone is saying it's wrong to want a cheaper, modular, upgradable system. Nobody is saying that.
But there is an overwhelming desire of so many posters to hijack this article and make it about something it isn't, and then argue rather than discuss, from that perspective. If those people were talking to Tim or Craig, or anybody on Apple's decision making levels, it would make some sense to try to hijack the conference/keynote/interview with pleas of 'But what about the rest of us???'
Hijacking this article is just ridiculous. At the moment, the comments are at 11 pages. If AI were to remove all the comments not related to this article, there'd be three, maybe two pages. But they didn't.
'Those are two separate articles' 'We addressed that in an earlier article'
No matter how many times or how it's said, posters want to run at AI with the 'What about me/us???' complaints like Black Friday shoppers bursting through the doors of a Target. This article isn't that.
64 lanes, twelve RAM slots. Not going to be cheap.
This motherboard is for gamers, and nobody should buy it for workstation uses. It just a board for hobbyists who want to be able to install a Xeon W-3175X ($3000 MSRP) and have some fun. Gigabyte is certifying, or stating that, it supports 192 GB of RAM. It’s kind of like taking the engine off a tank and putting it into a pick-up truck and saying, “woohoo!”
Actual server boards are on order $500 to $1000, but it’s the usual. It’s a board that has to fit an in generic case, and hopefully you have the right case, with around 6 PCIe slots, and the cabling will be a mess. The cooling solution and other components will be a mish-mash of stuff. Ie, a DIY product that is a very very, very, very long ways away from a production product that a business would offer.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
Nothing? Like I said, we've spoken on this before. But, like I said that other people are doing in the post you quoted, you're conflating topics. This article is not about what you want it to be, this article is about how the Mac Pro is worth what it costs.
Apple didn't set out to make that Mac mini tower and just miss. Apple set out to make a $6000 workstation, and that's what they did.
No one is conflating anything. You're trying to dismiss valid criticism of Apple's market strategy for this Mac Pro as irrelevant, and it is not. You lean on the fact that the 6K model is reasonably priced for what it offers as your excuse, but you miss the fact that this is actually the reason for criticism.
For once, an Apple computer doesn't leave anyone wondering why the hell it costs so much. It costs this much because of the equip. It is expensive kit that ships with the base model. Which also means, if they offered less expensive kit....there could, and would, and should, be a cheaper starting point.
They chose...not out of necessity, not because of some extensive list of design and engineering tradeoffs....they simply chose out of greed to not let anyone near this machine for less than 6K. There could have BTO models all the way up through 3K, 4K, 5K, 6K, and beyond...but they didn't want to sell that, and they didn't want anyone to have it.
This is no different than the pricing strategy for iPhone and iPad that has seen products double in price without doubling in purpose or value. It is pure predatory greed...pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
When Steve Jobs came back to Apple and introduced the first iMac, it as promoted as the ultimate consumer desktop => easy to set up and easy to use and the Mac Pro at that time was for Pros who needed performance & flexibility. I could be wrong but it feels like Apple is going back to that lineup for desktop Macs; iMac for consumers / prosumers and Mac Pro for the pros that need that capability. That's why I don't think the iMac Pro is long for this world & wouldn't be surprised if it gets cancelled and Apple goes back to iMac / Mac Mini / Mac Pro
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
Nothing? Like I said, we've spoken on this before. But, like I said that other people are doing in the post you quoted, you're conflating topics. This article is not about what you want it to be, this article is about how the Mac Pro is worth what it costs.
Apple didn't set out to make that Mac mini tower and just miss. Apple set out to make a $6000 workstation, and that's what they did.
No one is conflating anything. You're trying to dismiss valid criticism of Apple's market strategy for this Mac Pro as irrelevant, and it is not. You lean on the fact that the 6K model is reasonably priced for what it offers as your excuse, but you miss the fact that this is actually the reason for criticism.
For once, an Apple computer doesn't leave anyone wondering why the hell it costs so much. It costs this much because of the equip. It is expensive kit that ships with the base model. Which also means, if they offered less expensive kit....there could, and would, and should, be a cheaper starting point.
They chose...not out of necessity, not because of some extensive list of design and engineering tradeoffs....they simply chose out of greed to not let anyone near this machine for less than 6K. There could have BTO models all the way up through 3K, 4K, 5K, 6K, and beyond...but they didn't want to sell that, and they didn't want anyone to have it.
This is no different than the pricing strategy for iPhone and iPad that has seen products double in price without doubling in purpose or value. It is pure predatory greed...pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with.
It takes a great deal to frustrate me, but this continued drum-beat about people wanting to reframe the article into something it is not, is starting to get ridiculous.
The sections I bolded in your comment are 100% bullshit. In the first one, that isn't what I'm trying to do, so bullshit. In the second one, there are loads of people wondering why the hell it costs so much -- which is the point of the article, albeit not what you want it to be, so bullshit. The third one and fourth are bullshit, because profit margins for Apple aren't up since Jobs was in charge, they're down, so bullshit again.
So this leads me to conclude that you've either not read the article, any of my comments about it, or are willfully misinterpreting it. Which is it? Show me where I have ever said that I didn't want to see an xMac.
FTA: "While we won't argue that the xMac concept would be nice for us, and probably most of the AppleInsider audience, Apple set out to put the most processing power in the chassis they could, and they hit that target."
Here: One new one from today, and one from June, in case you missed the latter link the previous three times I posted it.
I don't disagree that some ray tracing calculations are faster on Nvidia, and like I said, I'd still rather have Nvidia support. AMD differs with this assertion, but I'll wait for a practical demonstration of that.
But, best performed on does not mean cannot be done. What I asked about "no possible way" like you asserted. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or trying to make a point. Are there any "cannot be done" work cases on AMD?
This argument would be an example of a contortion. A 5x speed difference is no small thing. It is the difference of 12 minutes per frame vs one hour. Using the argument of what "cannot be done" a professional could make do with an iMac. As I understand it (I am not an AI expert) neural net deep learning is on the order of 100 times faster on a NVIDIA GPU. Not having one is a show stopper.
No contortion, I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from. FWIW, the neural net deep learning one has changed since the 100x faster assertion in 2016. Card for card, there is a speed difference. Dollar per dollar, almost none. We'll see with time, we are talking to a deep learning specialist in regards to the Mac Pro.
And, a professional can make do with an iMac. The hardware does not make the pro.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
Nothing? Like I said, we've spoken on this before. But, like I said that other people are doing in the post you quoted, you're conflating topics. This article is not about what you want it to be, this article is about how the Mac Pro is worth what it costs.
Apple didn't set out to make that Mac mini tower and just miss. Apple set out to make a $6000 workstation, and that's what they did.
No one is conflating anything. You're trying to dismiss valid criticism of Apple's market strategy for this Mac Pro as irrelevant, and it is not. You lean on the fact that the 6K model is reasonably priced for what it offers as your excuse, but you miss the fact that this is actually the reason for criticism.
For once, an Apple computer doesn't leave anyone wondering why the hell it costs so much. It costs this much because of the equip. It is expensive kit that ships with the base model. Which also means, if they offered less expensive kit....there could, and would, and should, be a cheaper starting point.
They chose...not out of necessity, not because of some extensive list of design and engineering tradeoffs....they simply chose out of greed to not let anyone near this machine for less than 6K. There could have BTO models all the way up through 3K, 4K, 5K, 6K, and beyond...but they didn't want to sell that, and they didn't want anyone to have it.
This is no different than the pricing strategy for iPhone and iPad that has seen products double in price without doubling in purpose or value. It is pure predatory greed...pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with.
Send us some of the drugs you’re on. Seriously. This is a workstation built with workstation parts, requiring a custom workstation design. They can’t just give you a BTO picker to drop completely different components like processor classes into it. It’s a cohesive design, so that would require designing for those components, and this one was designed for the top tier components. Thus the price. Perhaps after it’s recovered it’s R&D costs they’ll apply a design to non-workstation components and requirements. But not on day one.
Too many of you whiners just need to be unhappy about things at all times, and you just keep moving the goalposts of what that is. Pathetic.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
The fact that you think you could build up to a Mac Pro from a mini shows you have zero idea of what’s inside this box.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
When Steve Jobs came back to Apple and introduced the first iMac, it was promoted as the ultimate consumer desktop => easy to set up and easy to use and the Mac Pro at that time was for Pros who needed performance & flexibility. I could be wrong but it feels like Apple is going back to that lineup for desktop Macs; iMac for consumers / prosumers and Mac Pro for the pros that need that capability. That's why I don't think the iMac Pro is long for this world & wouldn't be surprised if it gets cancelled and Apple goes back to iMac / Mac Mini / Mac Pro
The first Mac Pro came out 8 years after the iMac.
With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.
And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.
So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?
If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.
The two are different topics.
What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.
What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.
There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.
This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.
When Steve Jobs came back to Apple and introduced the first iMac, it was promoted as the ultimate consumer desktop => easy to set up and easy to use and the Mac Pro at that time was for Pros who needed performance & flexibility. I could be wrong but it feels like Apple is going back to that lineup for desktop Macs; iMac for consumers / prosumers and Mac Pro for the pros that need that capability. That's why I don't think the iMac Pro is long for this world & wouldn't be surprised if it gets cancelled and Apple goes back to iMac / Mac Mini / Mac Pro
The first Mac Pro came out 8 years after the iMac.
Even so, the general idea of iMac for consumer / Mac Pro for pros still stands.
Comments
Given that the Mac Pro has just now shipped, there is perhaps not yet the equivalent of a Honda Civic that profits, but there will be at some point.
stop that DIY non sense
The motherboard specs are basically saying AMD Zen 2 chips have support for 64 GB memory per channel, and each chip has 2 memory channels, resulting in:
Ryzen 5 is a single chip package, 2 memory channels, but likely defeatured to 64 GB max memory support
Ryzen 7 is a single chip package, 2 memory channels, supports 128 GB max memory
Ryzen 9 is a single chip package, 2 memory channels, supports 128 GB max memory
Threadripper 3000 series is a 2 chip package, 2x2 = 4 memory channels, supports 256 GB max memory
It looks like the max memory support is designed to compete with the Core processors, which range from 256 GB for Core X models and lower for the Core i models, and not the Xeons.
I assume for the Epyc packages, 4 chips per package, they won’t fuse the high memory support bits off and so that it is something like 128/256 GB per channel, have 4 DIMM per channel support, etc, so that 1 TB to 2 TB memory can be supported.
As it stands, Intel’s Xeon systems support 1 TB of memory for the low core count Xeon W CPUs and 2 TB for the high core count Xeon W CPUs. This give systems vendors options on how they want to design their computers, and it doesn’t eliminate a class of users and customers that wouldn’t get them otherwise.
In every field that uses a workstation, their will be users who end up using more memory, CPU, storage, GPU, etc, than the computer can provide. 256 GB memory support is definitely low, and would give system vendors pause. There will be CAD users who want their entire model in memory, numerical modelers who want their entire grid in memory, database users who want their entire database in memory, photographers who are dealing with hundred GB sized files, so on and so forth.
In addition to being a workstation, Apple is using the same board in a rack mount version, where they will surely go into cloud computing companies offering macOS hosting, with multiple users on the same machine.
Apple did make of choice of offering a Xeon W system instead of an Xeon-SP and offering a 2 socket system. That’s a definitely a limiting choice, but maybe it was primarily because 1400 W is the most power they could really go with, and something like 1800 W wasn’t worth the effort, and most of those systems are rack mounted anyways. Otherwise, the >256 GB memory support is feature that some buyers will make use off. In regards to a design or market choice between a Threadripper at 32 cores and 256 GB memory versus a Xeon W at 28 cores and 2 TB memory, I’m thinking the 2 TB is better net win.
But there is an overwhelming desire of so many posters to hijack this article and make it about something it isn't, and then argue rather than discuss, from that perspective. If those people were talking to Tim or Craig, or anybody on Apple's decision making levels, it would make some sense to try to hijack the conference/keynote/interview with pleas of 'But what about the rest of us???'
Hijacking this article is just ridiculous. At the moment, the comments are at 11 pages. If AI were to remove all the comments not related to this article, there'd be three, maybe two pages. But they didn't.
'Those are two separate articles'
'We addressed that in an earlier article'
No matter how many times or how it's said, posters want to run at AI with the 'What about me/us???' complaints like Black Friday shoppers bursting through the doors of a Target. This article isn't that.
Actual server boards are on order $500 to $1000, but it’s the usual. It’s a board that has to fit an in generic case, and hopefully you have the right case, with around 6 PCIe slots, and the cabling will be a mess. The cooling solution and other components will be a mish-mash of stuff. Ie, a DIY product that is a very very, very, very long ways away from a production product that a business would offer.
For once, an Apple computer doesn't leave anyone wondering why the hell it costs so much. It costs this much because of the equip. It is expensive kit that ships with the base model. Which also means, if they offered less expensive kit....there could, and would, and should, be a cheaper starting point.
They chose...not out of necessity, not because of some extensive list of design and engineering tradeoffs....they simply chose out of greed to not let anyone near this machine for less than 6K. There could have BTO models all the way up through 3K, 4K, 5K, 6K, and beyond...but they didn't want to sell that, and they didn't want anyone to have it.
This is no different than the pricing strategy for iPhone and iPad that has seen products double in price without doubling in purpose or value. It is pure predatory greed...pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with.
The sections I bolded in your comment are 100% bullshit. In the first one, that isn't what I'm trying to do, so bullshit. In the second one, there are loads of people wondering why the hell it costs so much -- which is the point of the article, albeit not what you want it to be, so bullshit. The third one and fourth are bullshit, because profit margins for Apple aren't up since Jobs was in charge, they're down, so bullshit again.
So this leads me to conclude that you've either not read the article, any of my comments about it, or are willfully misinterpreting it. Which is it? Show me where I have ever said that I didn't want to see an xMac.
FTA: "While we won't argue that the xMac concept would be nice for us, and probably most of the AppleInsider audience, Apple set out to put the most processing power in the chassis they could, and they hit that target."
Here: One new one from today, and one from June, in case you missed the latter link the previous three times I posted it.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/12/16/three-days-with-apples-new-mac-pro-incredible-speed-that-will-accelerate-with-time
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/06/13/editorial-new-mac-pro-highlights-the-gap-apple-isnt-filling
And, a professional can make do with an iMac. The hardware does not make the pro.
Too many of you whiners just need to be unhappy about things at all times, and you just keep moving the goalposts of what that is. Pathetic.